Game Theory For Baby Names

[Xerographica]

I'd also fail to explain what's so useful about nipples on dudes. If I could explain the usefulness of everything then markets wouldn't be so useful. Markets give everybody the opportunity to use their money to communicate how useful something is to them. This process selects for usefulness.

Evolution also selects for usefulness. But natural selection is far less efficient than market selection. Or, market selection is a more robust variety of natural selection.

If we apply market selection to names then they will evolve far more rapidly. Names will become far more useful in far less time.

Me: "How is one name more useful than another?"

You: "You have to implement a name market to find out."

Seriously, you sound like Nancy fucking Pelosi.

No answer the question: how is one name more useful than another?

Are you assuming that the demand for "Bob" and "Charles" is exactly the same?

[Forsher]

And why does spending money accurately reflect the "true will" of the people? More to the point, why does spending money more accurately convey information than voting?

Spending money reveals what's really important to people.

No, it doesn't. This is obvious.

It's pretty apparent you don't know what an inferior good is. That is a good that is bought, which according you means it is preferred over, say:

• the unpurchased option of going to your doctor to see if your daughter's persistent cough is a problem or not... but you can't afford to go to the doctor so it's actually irrelevant whether or not you want to go there (see: budget constraints).
• a normal good substitute, e.g. supermarket brand baked beans versus "name" brand baked beans, even though were you wealthier you'd purchase more of the substitute than the inferior good because the second part of the definition of inferior good says

but whose quantity demanded falls as income increases. Inferior goods are part of the fundamental lessons of core economics education, but Xero who spends all his time allegedly talking about "economics" has not in 6 years managed to appreciate them.

Now, an intellectually honest critique of this argument might point out that maybe the exercise demonstrates that the generic activity of "eating" is what is "really" important to people. And that's kind of true. But going to the doctor is something that is really important to people but which many, many people are priced out of (yes, even in developed countries that aren't the US).

Xero basically asks us to assume that anyone whose income forces them to make tradeoffs between different kinds of necessary good/service (e.g. food versus shelter, food versus medicine) is a complete idiot who doesn't actually value whatever is "sacrificed". That's moronic.

If, to be right, one's ideas require us to label things that we know are true, and we've checked that they are in fact true, false, we can logically prove that one's argument is false. That rather begs the question: why do we still have Xero prancing around with exactly the same ideas? They never change. Except the analogy. It'd be one thing for him to still be a "pragmatarian" but it is absurd, childish and, frankly, dumb for him to be using the same arguments as when he started.

[Forsher]

They lost money by saving it?

Time value of money.

What are the chances that the market will choose the name that the parents most prefer?

The only people who will participate are those who are interested. That just happens to be the parents. So, pretty high.

The only reason the probability isn't 1 is that preferences are unstable. Have you ever seen World Trade Centre? The baby's name in that film is what you're watching it for...

Are you assuming that the demand for "Bob" and "Charles" is exactly the same?

Until you manage to identify the actors, incentives and mechanisms involved in your market we can say whatever we like about it... which is similar to how I know for a fact that Venusians are better at soccer than Martians.

[Xerographica]

They lost money by saving it?

They lost utility of that money by being forced to save it and spend it at a later date.

If i took $50 from your wallet and said "don't eorry, I'm putting it in a term deposit account for you, you can have
It again in 5 years", I hope that you would be very annoyed. That money isnt as useful to you as it was in your wallet. I've forced you to lose 7sefulness and given you nothing you didnt aleady have. If you really wanted to save that money you would have done so already.

what are the chances that the market will choose the name that the parents most prefer?

The market without the parents? Essentially 0%.
The market with the parents beimg able to set a reserve price? Essentially 100%.

There are different ways to structure markets. You could make it so that only bidders who win have to pay... everybody else would get their money back. But wanting your money back is pretty weak sauce if it would have gone into the child's college fund. If the child's college fund is an issue, then the bids could go straight into the parent's pockets. Personally, my guess is that more strangers would be willing to bid/donate if they knew for certain that the money would be used for the baby's future benefit (as opposed to a new pair of shoes for mom).

It's doubtful that there would only be one website in the baby naming market. Each website would be structured differently.

[Maqo]

They lost utility of that money by being forced to save it and spend it at a later date.

If i took $50 from your wallet and said "don't eorry, I'm putting it in a term deposit account for you, you can have
It again in 5 years", I hope that you would be very annoyed. That money isnt as useful to you as it was in your wallet. I've forced you to lose 7sefulness and given you nothing you didnt aleady have. If you really wanted to save that money you would have done so already.


The market without the parents? Essentially 0%.
The market with the parents beimg able to set a reserve price? Essentially 100%.

There are different ways to structure markets. You could make it so that only bidders who win have to pay... everybody else would get their money back. But wanting your money back is pretty weak sauce if it would have gone into the college fund

I literally just gave an example of why this is doesn't work.
This is like saying that if your item on Ebay doesnt get to the reserve price, you must donate equal to thr higgest bid to charity, and not complain because its a 'worthy cause'. It makes no sense. You're creating a system where others can force loss of value on to you.

If the child's college fund is an issue, then the bids could go straight into the parent's pockets. Personally, my guess is that more strangers would be willing to bid/donate if they knew for certain that the money would be used for the baby's future benefit (as opposed to a new pair of shoes for mom).

Maybe. But mum is 100% less likely to participate if there is a chance she'll not only make nothing, but actually LOSE something by participating.

It's doubtful that there would only be one website in the baby naming market. Each website would be structured differently.

You asked for optimal strategies for "game" you defined. I gave you the answer that the optimal strategy is not to play.
Yes there are indeed many other structures, but they sre different games.

However I still go back to my original point. There is nothing preventing anyone from doing this right now. But people don't, and never have. Which leads me to believe that with utility functions that we see in the real world, there is no variation which leads to even net positive outcomes.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Is the rope a metaphor for bidding, or is it a metaphor for debating? Make up your mind.

Imagine that there was a survey...

There should be a baby naming market.

True
False

Obviously you'd vote for "False". Now let's imagine that voting was replaced with spending...

There should be a baby naming market.

True: $ _________________
False: $ _________________

In this case, you can't vote for "False". But you can get out your wallet and spend as much money as you want on "False". How much would you spend?

The dumbass giving me the survey should pay ME to answer, not the other way around.

[Camicon]

Ok, so spending money is better than voting because it conveys more information. Voting tells us what someone prefers, whereas spending money tells us what they prefer and also how much they prefer it. This is your argument, yes?

Yes, this is correct.

So, more information is better than less information. Spending money conveys more information than voting, and for that reason is better than voting.

So, what conveys more information: spending money, or language?

[Xerographica]

Yes, this is correct.

So, more information is better than less information. Spending money conveys more information than voting, and for that reason is better than voting.

So, what conveys more information: spending money, or language?

Language can tell us what people prefer and also how much they prefer it. The problem with this information about preference intensity is that it isn't very trustworthy. You can tell the cashier lady at the grocery store that you really really really really really need and want all the items in your shopping cart. But it's probably not going to work. In order to persuade her, you have to give her solid proof of your demand. You do this by sacrificing something that's valuable to you... your money. This is concrete evidence of your interest.

What if you simply take out a $100 dollar bill and burn it? It would definitely be a sacrifice. But it would just prove that you're crazy. And you wouldn't get the groceries.

In order to get the groceries you have to put your money into the hands of the cashier lady. This allows the store to prove its demand to all its suppliers.

[Maqo]

So, more information is better than less information. Spending money conveys more information than voting, and for that reason is better than voting.

So, what conveys more information: spending money, or language?

Language can tell us what people prefer and also how much they prefer it. The problem with this information about preference intensity is that it isn't very trustworthy. You can tell the cashier lady at the grocery store that you really really really really really need and want all the items in your shopping cart. But it's probably not going to work. In order to persuade her, you have to give her solid proof of your demand. You do this by sacrificing something that's valuable to you... your money. This is concrete evidence of your interest.

What if you simply take out a $100 dollar bill and burn it? It would definitely be a sacrifice. But it would just prove that you're crazy. And you wouldn't get the groceries.

In order to get the groceries you have to put your money into the hands of the cashier lady. This allows the store to prove its demand to all its suppliers.

No. That is absolutely not what is going on.
Have you spent 4 years developing your theories based on this fundamental misconception of trade that even my dog understands?

The shop doesn't give you anything based on how convincing your story or your sacrifice is.
They give you stuff in exchange for something they want more. A trade.

They want $2 more than they want their milk, so you can buy milk for $2.
They want their milk more than they want your $1, so you cant buy milk for $1.
Nothing about proving or interpreting sacrifice.

[Camicon]

So, more information is better than less information. Spending money conveys more information than voting, and for that reason is better than voting.

So, what conveys more information: spending money, or language?

Language can tell us what people prefer and also how much they prefer it. The problem with this information about preference intensity is that it isn't very trustworthy.
*snip*

Stop there.

What makes spending money more trustworthy than language?

People value money differently for a variety of reasons; such as, what income bracket they grew up in, what income bracket they currently reside in, their level of wealth, the kind of social safety net in their state, etcetera. People also want to spend as little money as possible for as great a benefit as possible, and we all do so all the time; nobody gives up their life savings for a glass of clean water, or a breath of fresh air, even though we would die without either.

Spending money, or not spending money, does not convey that information. It does not convey why a person is (not) spending money, or tell you anything about how much they value money, or about how much they value the thing they are (not) spending money on. When Person A spends X dollars on Thing Y, the only thing it tells you is that Person A is willing to spend X dollars on Thing Y. And when Person A doesn't spend money on Thing Y, the only thing it tells you is that Person A is able to acquire Thing Y without spending money.

Spending or not spending money might convey more information than voting (and that is very arguable, because exit polls are a thing) but it does not convey more information than language, and because of that it is not more trustworthy than language.

[Xerographica]

Language can tell us what people prefer and also how much they prefer it. The problem with this information about preference intensity is that it isn't very trustworthy.
*snip*

Stop there.

What makes spending money a more trustworthy indicator than language?

People value money differently for a variety of reasons; such as, what income bracket they grew up in, what income bracket they currently reside in, their level of wealth, the kind of social safety net in their state, etcetera. People also want to spend as little money as possible for as great a benefit as possible, and we all do so all the time; nobody gives up their life savings for a glass of clean water, or a breath of fresh air, even though we would die without either.

Spending money, or not spending money, does not convey that information. It does not convey why a person is (not) spending money, or tell you anything about how much they value money, or about how much they value the thing they are (not) spending money on. When Person A spends X dollars on Thing Y, the only thing it tells you is that Person A is willing to spend X dollars on Thing Y. And when Person A doesn't spend money on Thing Y, the only thing it tells you is that Person A is able to acquire Thing Y without spending money.

Spending or not spending money might convey more information than voting (and that is very arguable, because exit polls are a thing) but it does not convey more information than language, and because of that it is not more trustworthy than language.

So then why do we all spend money?

[Xerographica]

Language can tell us what people prefer and also how much they prefer it. The problem with this information about preference intensity is that it isn't very trustworthy. You can tell the cashier lady at the grocery store that you really really really really really need and want all the items in your shopping cart. But it's probably not going to work. In order to persuade her, you have to give her solid proof of your demand. You do this by sacrificing something that's valuable to you... your money. This is concrete evidence of your interest.

What if you simply take out a $100 dollar bill and burn it? It would definitely be a sacrifice. But it would just prove that you're crazy. And you wouldn't get the groceries.

In order to get the groceries you have to put your money into the hands of the cashier lady. This allows the store to prove its demand to all its suppliers.

No. That is absolutely not what is going on.
Have you spent 4 years developing your theories based on this fundamental misconception of trade that even my dog understands?

The shop doesn't give you anything based on how convincing your story or your sacrifice is.
They give you stuff in exchange for something they want more. A trade.

They want $2 more than they want their milk, so you can buy milk for $2.
They want their milk more than they want your $1, so you cant buy milk for $1.
Nothing about proving or interpreting sacrifice.

Are you saying that trade isn't a sacrifice? Or are you saying that it is a sacrifice, but it's just a coincidence?

[Camicon]

Stop there.

What makes spending money a more trustworthy indicator than language?

People value money differently for a variety of reasons; such as, what income bracket they grew up in, what income bracket they currently reside in, their level of wealth, the kind of social safety net in their state, etcetera. People also want to spend as little money as possible for as great a benefit as possible, and we all do so all the time; nobody gives up their life savings for a glass of clean water, or a breath of fresh air, even though we would die without either.

Spending money, or not spending money, does not convey that information. It does not convey why a person is (not) spending money, or tell you anything about how much they value money, or about how much they value the thing they are (not) spending money on. When Person A spends X dollars on Thing Y, the only thing it tells you is that Person A is willing to spend X dollars on Thing Y. And when Person A doesn't spend money on Thing Y, the only thing it tells you is that Person A is able to acquire Thing Y without spending money.

Spending or not spending money might convey more information than voting (and that is very arguable, because exit polls are a thing) but it does not convey more information than language, and because of that it is not more trustworthy than language.

So then why do we all spend money?

Because currency, a socially agreed upon medium for exchange, is easier to carry around than goats and bricks, and can be accumulated and stockpiled in a way that labour cannot.

Money doesn't exist for the purpose of communication, that's what we have language for. Money exists to better facilitate trade. The fact that we can glean some, very limited information from trade which involves money is incidental; that's not what it is for, that's not what it is good at, and it is vastly outstripped on the second count by other methods.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

I've been thinking.

What if instead of arguing the spouses bid to express how badly they want their way?
What if in football victory was not determined by who scored the most points but by spectators bidding on who they feel should win?

[Xerographica]

So then why do we all spend money?

Because currency, a socially agreed upon medium for exchange, is easier to carry around than goats and bricks, and can be accumulated and stockpiled in a way that labour cannot.

Money doesn't exist for the purpose of communication, that's what we have language for. Money exists to better facilitate trade. The fact that we can glean some, very limited information from trade which involves money is incidental; that's not what it is for, that's not what it is good at, and it is vastly outstripped on the second count by other methods.

Did you see this post?

$4: Blonde Redhead - Tons Confession
$2: Jamie xx - Gosh
$1: Weekend Wolves - You
$1: Hello Seahorse! - La Flotadera
$1: Kid Simius - The Flute Song
$1: Rone - Down for the Cause
$0: Jan Blomqvist - More
$0: DATA - Don't Sing
$0: Moderat - Running
$0: Bomb the Bass & Lali Puna - Recut

That's how I'd divide $10 dollars between these 10 songs that I really like. How much information does my division transmit?

[Forsher]

Language can tell us what people prefer and also how much they prefer it. The problem with this information about preference intensity is that it isn't very trustworthy. You can tell the cashier lady at the grocery store that you really really really really really need and want all the items in your shopping cart. But it's probably not going to work. In order to persuade her, you have to give her solid proof of your demand. You do this by sacrificing something that's valuable to you... your money. This is concrete evidence of your interest.

People don't sell goods on the basis of "let's see who's really interested in this stuff" but rather "who can give me something I want for something I don't particularly want". This is a strawman position, i.e. the current reasoning is wrong.

Obviously language is a poor means of expressing preference intensity because it is so subject to interpretation. If, however, you could be sure that everyone was on the same wavelength, including knowing that you can trust what someone says, then it would be a rather good method. The point is that you can't afford to buy something isn't evidence of lying: why would anyone ever think that it was?

Consider ranked votes. Let's say you can vote for Jill Stein, The Rock, Oprah, Ivanka Trump, George W. Bush, Gary Johnson and Obama in the 2020 US presidential election (Pence becomes President in October, pardons Trump for groping, manages to corral the powers that be into reforming the US constitution but fails in his major aim of religifying the new one, resigns and his vice president Ivanka Trump takes over). As part of the new way of holding elections one is able to rank the candidates. In brackets I provide several potential ways of ranking the candidates... the () indicates no ranking, i.e. under no circumstances does the hypothetical voter vote for that candidate. Everyone is aware that first candidate to beat 50% becomes US president and the runner up at the time the new vice president. Everyone also knows that () is a valid vote. Every voter's voting paper has ordered the candidates randomly (as opposed to alphabetically). I also assume (and this unrealistic) that all voters have the same view of the sort of political space each candidate occupies.*

Code: Select all

[*]Obama                                       
(1)  ()   (1)   ()   (3)  ()  (1)  (5)  ()
[*]Bush                                           
(2)  ()    ()    (1)  ()   (3) (5)  (1)  ()
[*]Trump                                         
(3)  ()    ()    (2)  ()   (2) (6)  (2)  ()
[*]Stein                                           
(4)  (4)  (3)   ()   (1) ()   (4)  (7)  ()
[*]Candidate Johnson                     
(5)  (3)  ()    (3)  ()  (1)  (7) (4)  ()
[*]Candidate Johnson (no relation)
(7)  (1)  (4)  (4) (4)  (4) (3) (3) (1)
[*]Winfrey                                       
(6)  (2)  (2)  ()   (2)  ()  (2)  (6)  ()


(qualifications: most to least) (wants political outsiders) (Democrat) (Republican) (Green) (Libertarian) (centre-left) (centre-right) (radical centrist)
.
Okay, so who wins this election? (they need to reach 5)

(First Count Votes) (Second Count Votes) (etc)

Because it was necessary and I couldn't think of any more plausible fake voter profiles, I used eliminations based on number of second rank votes.

Code: Select all

[*]Obama                                                       
(3)  (4)  (4) (4)
[*]Bush                                                           
(2)  (2)  (3) (3)
[*]Trump                                                         
(0)  (-)   (-) (-)
[*]Stein                                                           
(1)  (-)   (-) (-)
[*]Candidate Johnson (no, the other one)     
(1)  (1)  (-) (-)
[*]Candidate Johnson                                   
(1)  (1)  (1) (-)
[*]Winfrey                                                       
(0)  (-)   (-) (-)

Obama wins! Because the radical centrist's preferences were such that all remaining candidates other than the Rock were intolerable. Also, George W. Bush is the new vice president. Should be interesting, right?

Now, I know that not everyone thinks this kind of voting actually represents preferences, but I don't agree with that. On principle, if I strongly prefer a candidate to another I rank that candidate as the number one option so I am able to represent relative positions even though I can't say that I vastly prefer, say, Obama relative to all the other options. I'm not even sure that ranking that kind of preference intensity is even desirable. It might be the case that you get some die hards who are completely for, say, compulsory euthanasia at 80 and everyone else is just completely "meh" about it but does no they're "meh-noes" and "meh-yesses" what do we gain by reflecting the electorate's division into die-hards (rather, die easies) and mehs? It seems an excellent way to run the risk of pulling political attention away from what helps the most people towards what helps strongly interested groups. With the exception of when those really interested groups are poor, there are other ways of bringing interest group demands to wider attention that are associate with depth of interest. It's important that politics has a lot of breadth, you know?

Also notice what's going on in this example. Because everyone is given the same amount of voting potential it makes sense to talk about how they rank candidates as reflecting their preferences (within the limits so discussed and any others I'm not aware of). The confounding influence of different budgetary constraints isn't present and doesn't screw everything up, i.e. this system looks more like Xero's analogies for markets than actual markets do. And if you changed it so that you have a 100 votes to distribute however one chooses over the various options, it'd work pretty much the way Xero says markets do (although, as I said, I don't think this is a good idea). A change to the system that I'd approve of would be letting people do something like this... Stein (), The Rock (), Oprah (3), Trump (), Bush (), Johnson () and Obama (1). It might not seem worth it at first glance but sometimes people don't want to support their second best option that much, they want to be more grudging about it. There's an even greater risk of your vote's not counting this way (the sacrifice that Xero cares so much about) but it does mean that you're not forced to vote the way the Radical Centrist did. It's probably largely symbolic (if it gets to a point where third preferences matter, you vote for that candidate same as if you'd ranked them first) but that's a quite important thing.


and it would best if it was possible to have a ranking that skips numbers but resumes later, e.g. Obama = 1

*The Rock's politics are unknown. His campaign was not particularly enlightening on this point either (he just flexed).

[Xerographica]

I've been thinking.

What if instead of arguing the spouses bid to express how badly they want their way?

This is good thinking.

What if in football victory was not determined by who scored the most points but by spectators bidding on who they feel should win?

This is also good thinking. Out of curiosity I did some digging...

Did you laugh that much in real life?

Don't flatter yourself, it's worth nothing more than repeatedly typing the same two letters on a keyboard.

You win the award for shedding the least amount of light on what socialism actually is.

I would like too thank my family, who had supported me throughout my career. I would also like too thank my sponsors who enabled me to achieve greatness, and my adoring fans who I could not abide without.

[Maqo]

Language can tell us what people prefer and also how much they prefer it. The problem with this information about preference intensity is that it isn't very trustworthy.
*snip*

Stop there.

What makes spending money a more trustworthy indicator than language?

I don't think that Xero's premise is actually that incorrect (though most of the objections you raise are legitimate). Its just that hes taking something which works in certain situations and trying to apply it far beyond where it is useful.

There are certainly times when we behave like this in real life. For example,:
A high end house or apartment might require a viewing fee at tge "home open" to prevent gawkers from wasting the agents time.
You might be having an argument and be so sure of your position that you l say "I bet you $10 that I'm right".

Both are situations where money is used as a proxy for strength of belief.
However there are other times when money is used to disguise information: you'd be a very poor poker player if you acted as if the biggest bets were always the best hands.

[Forsher]

Because currency, a socially agreed upon medium for exchange, is easier to carry around than goats and bricks, and can be accumulated and stockpiled in a way that labour cannot.

Money doesn't exist for the purpose of communication, that's what we have language for. Money exists to better facilitate trade. The fact that we can glean some, very limited information from trade which involves money is incidental; that's not what it is for, that's not what it is good at, and it is vastly outstripped on the second count by other methods.

Did you see this post?

$4: Blonde Redhead - Tons Confession
$2: Jamie xx - Gosh
$1: Weekend Wolves - You
$1: Hello Seahorse! - La Flotadera
$1: Kid Simius - The Flute Song
$1: Rone - Down for the Cause
$0: Jan Blomqvist - More
$0: DATA - Don't Sing
$0: Moderat - Running
$0: Bomb the Bass & Lali Puna - Recut

That's how I'd divide $10 dollars between these 10 songs that I really like. How much information does my division transmit?

That you don't like Moderat - Running, which you'd earlier told me isn't true.

Congratulations Xero, you have the evidence that you're wrong all lined up for us. Very thoughtful.

[Xerographica]

Did you see this post?


That's how I'd divide $10 dollars between these 10 songs that I really like. How much information does my division transmit?

That you don't like Moderat - Running, which you'd earlier told me isn't true.

Congratulations Xero, you have the evidence that you're wrong all lined up for us. Very thoughtful.

Why don't you try the same exercise? It doesn't have to be with music. It could be with books or articles or forum posts. Just list 10 things that you really like and divide $10 dollars between them.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

I've been thinking.

What if instead of arguing the spouses bid to express how badly they want their way?

This is good thinking.

What if in football victory was not determined by who scored the most points but by spectators bidding on who they feel should win?

This is also good thinking. Out of curiosity I did some digging...

Don't flatter yourself, it's worth nothing more than repeatedly typing the same two letters on a keyboard.

I would like too thank my family, who had supported me throughout my career. I would also like too thank my sponsors who enabled me to achieve greatness, and my adoring fans who I could not abide without.

What?

[Galloism]

However there are other times when money is used to disguise information: you'd be a very poor poker player if you acted as if the biggest bets were always the best hands.

Moreover, the presence of money* itself causes dishonesty in many situations where otherwise there wouldn't be dishonesty. Poker playing is a good example, but we can go straight to a market example.

I bought a used car for my wife. It was a very nice used car. KBB valued this used car at $12,000 for good condition. However, it was exceptionally well maintained (with a complete maintenance log very reminiscent of an aircraft maintenance log) and I felt its value was $13,500, give or take. The man wanted $11,000. However, I expressed verbally that I thought the car was worth not that much and haggled him down to $9,000 which is what the transaction took place at.

What happened?

If someone had asked me what I thought the car was worth, and I wasn't engaged in the transaction, I would have said $13,500. I can also express this value in Dominos one topping pizzas if that's easier for you. That's my honest opinion. But since I had money in the game, it was in my best interest to convey skepticism, reluctance, and a feeling that the car was not worth as much as it was.


*Note, "money" in this case being "something which must be sacrificed being used as a medium of monetary exchange". Before the existence of minted currency people were still overestimating the value of the chickens they were giving up and underestimating the value of the pig they were receiving in exchange. Putting money in the game causes dishonesty and incorrect information in many situations - deliberately.

[Forsher]

That you don't like Moderat - Running, which you'd earlier told me isn't true.

Congratulations Xero, you have the evidence that you're wrong all lined up for us. Very thoughtful.

Why don't you try the same exercise? It doesn't have to be with music. It could be with books or articles or forum posts. Just list 10 things that you really like and divide $10 dollars between them.

It would again lead to a misleading transmission of preferences.

Consider the Democrat and Republican example voters versus the centre-left and centre-right examples. How would these voters have split $10 among their 7 candidates? Does that accurately indicate their strength of feeling? Did you have to make assumptions about the relative intensities? Is it that the centrists are willing to compromise or do they actually value the candidates their more extreme peers won't vote for? (Assume both cases are true, state different dollar distributions for each.) Does it matter that you can't answer that question? (Give a reason for your answer, reference all of your distributions.) Does it matter that we have to use non-integer dollar amounts?

[Neutraligon]

Why don't you try the same exercise? It doesn't have to be with music. It could be with books or articles or forum posts. Just list 10 things that you really like and divide $10 dollars between them.

It would again lead to a misleading transmission of preferences.

Consider the Democrat and Republican example voters versus the centre-left and centre-right examples. How would these voters have split $10 among their 7 candidates? Does that accurately indicate their strength of feeling? Did you have to make assumptions about the relative intensities? Is it that the centrists are willing to compromise or do they actually value the candidates their more extreme peers won't vote for? (Assume both cases are true, state different dollar distributions for each.) Does it matter that you can't answer that question? (Give a reason for your answer, reference all of your distributions.) Does it matter that we have to use non-integer dollar amounts?

I note that you are stating out at a fixed amount of money where everyone has the same amount.

[Camicon]

Because currency, a socially agreed upon medium for exchange, is easier to carry around than goats and bricks, and can be accumulated and stockpiled in a way that labour cannot.

Money doesn't exist for the purpose of communication, that's what we have language for. Money exists to better facilitate trade. The fact that we can glean some, very limited information from trade which involves money is incidental; that's not what it is for, that's not what it is good at, and it is vastly outstripped on the second count by other methods.

Did you see this post?

$4: Blonde Redhead - Tons Confession
$2: Jamie xx - Gosh
$1: Weekend Wolves - You
$1: Hello Seahorse! - La Flotadera
$1: Kid Simius - The Flute Song
$1: Rone - Down for the Cause
$0: Jan Blomqvist - More
$0: DATA - Don't Sing
$0: Moderat - Running
$0: Bomb the Bass & Lali Puna - Recut

That's how I'd divide $10 dollars between these 10 songs that I really like. How much information does my division transmit?

It tells me that you value Blonde Redhead - Tons Confession over Jamie xx - Gosh, which you value over Weekend Wolves - You, Hello Seahorse! - La Flotadera, Kid Simius - The Flute Song, and Rone - Down for the Cause, each of which you value over Jan Blomqvist - More, DATA - Don't Sing, Moderat - Running, and Bomb the Bass & Lali Puna - Recut.

But that's not how you buy music, so whatever point you're trying to make is already moot.

Also, your "divide ten dollars" scenario gives me less information than if you had simply rated each song on a 10 point scale, which would tell me how much you like each song individually in addition to how much you value each song as compared to every other song on that list, whereas your "divide ten dollars" scenario only tells me the latter.